Faux Noise - The Trickery Revealed

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. The data showed journalists hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. Lichter and Rothman’s book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s.

KEY FINDINGS:

More than four-fifths of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.

When liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists' ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”

This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.

The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure” – “progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.

Harry Truman chose a staff of advisers that didn't always agree. Truman was quoted as saying he didn't want a bunch of yes men that agreed on everything he said. By having a true debate on issues meant that all sides of an issue could be explored and a more accurate and effective resolution could be determined.

Fox is at least one news source that gives a better perspective of the news because it gives a different perspective than the other sources that favor the progressive perspective. We need the conservative and progressive views so that all can be considered.

It is revealing to me while reading the progressive views on the blogs in Huffington Post of how many people think government will solve all problems, including domestic issues. They use socialist nations like Denmark as a goal for the US. My reply to them is to move to Denmark and leave the US for us that like capitalism.

any media that brings on former somebodies who just wrote books. If you're running a news story, bring on the people actually involved in the story or don't bother to talk about it.

"Ladies and gentlemen, here to talk with us about how the raid on Bin Laden went down, are Joan Walsh from Salon.com, and pultizer prize winning journalist Eugene Robinson." HUH?

Same with newspapers. I don't give much weight to any story that reports, like in today's IP, "Another senior administration official, not authorized to speak for attribution," described.... Then I don't care what he/she described. It's conjecture, rumor, or lie as far as I'm concerned.

"A “what do you expect” question invariably tops off the argument which always ends with the Fox host a winner and the Democrat or social critic a loser on every level."

Obviously, Danny Schecter has not sat down and watched MSNBC from 7am to 11pm. Same modus, different channel. But at least Fox News brings on Democrats and social critics. Check the guest line-up on MSNBC and tell me how many Republicans or conservatives are on there. The few real one's I've seen on MSNBC usually tear the host a new one.

Yes, the Fox News "trickery" has been exposed Gin.
We actually have a news agency that provides BOTH sides of a story / topic instead of simply providing the "progressive" point of view..........and they're finding out that people actually prefer that tactic and tune in.
-That's SOME trick alright.

I don't agree that we "need" Fox News because I find them very unfair and unbalanced. :-)

However, considering the successfulness of John Walsh's efforts over the past 23 years, I'd definitely say we NEED America's Most Wanted. Hopefully another network will recognize the benefits of the program so it can continue.

Apple's and Oranges Gin. Fox Entertainment Channel and Fox News Channel are very different. Completely different management / decision makers at each network.

I do agree that America's Most wanted was a terrific program though and it had a great run. There aren't many shows that stay on the air for that long. But, business is business, and the show was no longer making money - which means it was losing it's popularity. There are talks about doing a few 2 hour shows a year (probably as "specials") so they ARE trying to hold on to the program in a way, but if it no longer has an audience Gin, then there isn't much they can do.

An "honest press" Willy? Are you kidding me??? LOL!
We are all about to witness the most corrupt press we've EVER seen in our nations history, during this election cycle, in an effort to get Obama re-elected. Mark my words.
Keep wishing for honesty my friend....................and Don't turn off ANY news!

Of course I watched your video clip. :-) I'm not convinced that outrageous gas prices are ever "good" under any administration.

However, please note the timing. Gas prices did not start inching up under the Obama administration until Boehner, et.al., regained the house.

Btw, just for the record, (off topic) I don't think conglomerates such as GE should be exempt from paying taxes. There is no justification or logic in it (that I am aware of) especially when some states currently (and are planning to) tax pensions. Seniors have already paid taxes on the money they have earned.

Creators Syndicate – As much as CNN likes to tell the public and advertisers that it's squarely in the sensible center between the partisan attacks of MSNBC and Fox News, the reality says otherwise. Even if CNN has no Screaming Schultzes or Crazy Larry O'Donnell types, it's still firmly in the Democratic sphere of influence.

On his show, "In The Arena," on May 12, CNN host Eliot Spitzer recounted how a story in The New York Times "brought a smile to my face. It said the president of the United States calls you for wisdom and advice about issues around the world. So first, when he calls you, what does he say? Hi, Barack calling for Fareed? What does he do?"

His guest Fareed Zakaria replied, "Mostly it's been face-to-face meetings. You know, usually organized by Tom Donilon, the national security adviser," and it's been a "very thoughtful conversation." (That certainly compliments both sides of the chat.)

Spitzer then added, "I'm not going to ask you what you have said to the president, but it makes my heart warm that the president is calling you for wisdom and advice."

Actually any of us could do what GE did. Congress has authorized lots of tax incentives for corporations and individual tax payers. Those incentives are to encourage participating in programs that it thinks will enhance the nation's well being. For instance, GE took advantage of some of those programs by investing in alternative fuels research, upgrading buildings with the latest energy saving technology and others. Each investment meant a tax break that reduces the tax owed. They had cash, so they kept investing until they got their tax bill down.

But we could do the same if we have the money. Buy a Volt or Leaf for 40,000.00, get new energy efficient appliances and new AC, install insulated steel door and double paned windows in your home, etc. You could end up paying no taxes too, but it takes money to do it. GE had the world wide profits to do it.

Gin- "However, please note the timing. Gas prices did not start inching up under the Obama Administration until Boehner, et. al., regained the House."

Gee Gin, with logic like THAT, we could say that the reason this country is in the poor economic situation that we're in is due to Pelosi and Reid, cuz things didn't start going really bad until they, et. el., regained majorities in both Houses.
-I like your logic. ;-)

Is anyone still questioning why Jeff Immelt and MSNBC helped push Obama into winning the White House anymore?
GE CEO getting major tax breaks and is a company investing in "green" technology (an Obama favorite); MSNBC owner pushing a political agenda - for profit reasons; and now he's also on Obama's Economic Advisory Board (kissing a little butt?).
-Can't say I didn't try to warn people.

Actually pensions and other retirement benefits are taxable when received after retirement. SS is taxable to a point, but it depends on the total income.

We are receiving money we invested from 401Ks, teacher's pension for my wife , other income from tax deferred investments and SS.

Tax deferred investments like 40Ks were deductible on taxes at the time of investment and paid back with earnings after retirement. Pensions are annuities bought by the employer for the employee.

The strategy is to lower taxes while earning the money and get it back after retirement when supposedly the income is lower and in a lower tax bracket. It works, because our income is lower now and we pay less income taxes.

I believe there is a proposal to tax earnings on pensions before retirement, but that won't fly unless they restructure the whole tax deferred tax code.

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.